tv C-SPAN Weekend CSPAN January 29, 2011 6:00am-7:00am EST
the deficit according to the congressional budget office will be a mere $1.50 trillion. the president's response is to say he is very concerned about it and deal with the deficit mostly with free-standing at current levels except for a few levels where we will decrease levels. all of the staffers in georgia starting your careers, i want to thank you for taking on this debt you and your children will pay for the rest of your lives and consider the economic consequences for the country. that is going to undermine our strategic projection capabilities beginning almost immediately.
here we have a situation. it is difficult for the united states to affect what is going on in china. to pretend these challenges do not exist at all work to ignore them and not deal with them i think is extremely troubling. say as well about a research in russia -- a resurgence in russia, where vladimir putin said a few years ago that the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century was the breakup of the soviet union. i think most of us in the wreck of the soviet union was a pretty good way to end the 20th- century. that is obvious to not prime minister putin's view. it is clear that he wants to reestablish russian hegemony within the space of the former soviet union, not necessarily recreate u.s.s.r., but reestablished as russia's backyard. as people in the republic of georgia what it is like to be
the recipient of that policy. what is our response? we want every said button. during the bush administration, our relations with russia deteriorated. well, yes, they did deteriorate because of russian aggressiveness, russian threats to cut off oil and natural gas to eastern and central europe and the flow through to western europe, this drive to reassert russia's role in the former soviet union, russia is a flying political air cover for iran and north korea's nuclear weapons programs in the security council. and the administration's response is to sign the new start treaty as part of the recent policy. when asked, what have we gone from russia for this reason policy, the answer is, we got the new start treaty. so it is a completely circular form of logic as the russians behavior in a nearly a belligerent fashion. i response is to limit our
offensive nuclear weapons capabilities in a way that constrains us, that is not equally constrained russia. russia has its legitimate defense needs, as do we. russia has, by my count, and treaty ally in the world, belarus. no, congratulations. we have got a nuclear umbrella to protect our friends in europe and asia, and has provided the cornerstone of strategic stability internationally. and that nuclear umbrella is developing holes in it. when other countries see that our nuclear capabilities are deteriorating, they will naturally ask themselves the question, should we be looking out for ourselves? so that our weakening of our nuclear typically does not achieve the president's objective of moving toward a nuclear-is the low world, it actually increases the incentive
for our own friends to find ways to protect themselves against external threats. and there, i think the administration has also really perform in a way that has allowed it challenges in the proliferation area, especially in the nuclear field, simply to grow. the administration's rhetoric, certainly the president's idea of nuclear-0, must be based by definition on rogue states like iran and north korea giving of their nuclear weapons programs. of which there is absolutely no evidence. indeed, all of the evidence is to the contrary. the president started out his administration by announcing in his inaugural address that he wanted to negotiate with north korea and iran. he said, we will extend our open hand if only they will unclench their fists.
well, that is a policy of complete naivety in my view, and it has been treated as such by the intended recipients on the other side. north korea detonated a second nuclear device and received in response only a modest increase in sanctions and renewed u.s. activity to reactivate the failed six-party talks. just recently, north korea revealed a uranium enrichment capability that many, even in the bush administration, denied they were pursuing. while at the same time, building a new nuclear reactor at yeonpyeong to replace the one that they had before, which was held together by chewing gum and wire. demonstrating that the -- this is desperately impoverished
country subject to more economic sanctions and any other country in the world still somehow finds resources to expand its nuclear capability. and i would have to say that i do not think that uranium enrichment facility that they reveal this the only one in north korea had. they would not build it at yeonpyeong, where we already know the target cordons, unless they had one or more backups in those mountains of north korea where we have no idea what is going on underground. so north korea is making progress, even as it faces the challenge of the regime transition in the world, so far only hereditary communist dictatorship. response seems to be still simply limited to trying to get the six-party talks going again. that is the failure of imagination that has to impress others around the world also
thinking of developing their own nuclear weapons capability, and it appalls the leadership in countries like japan, which visibly feel the threat from north korea. and worry that the united states is not going to respond in ways that are appropriate to provide for the defense of its allies, like south korea and japan, in the region. i think, actually, the failure that is even worse when it comes to the case of iran, where not only has the administration spent two years of wandering the world, looking for some iranian officials to shake hands with, it has failed to do even the minimum steps to support the iranian opposition. and we saw -- i want to be fair here, which is not much worse in the record of the bridge
administration in its second half, which did not do much to support the opposition either -- it is not much worse than the record of the bush administration in its second half. you do not want to provide any material assistance to opposition groups in iran, because that will take them. it will allow them to say that they're just tools of the americans and it will make the opposition less effective. i have two responses to that. first is, that will say that any way. they did in the aftermath of the fraudulent elections of 2009. actually, they blamed the brits more than a blind us, which leads me to wonder what the brits were probably doing more than we were. point being, it is a matter what we do or do not do, we're going to get the blame for it anyway. if we're going to get blamed, why not achieve something? but number two, i recognize this prospect is not theoretical. it could happen. but why not let the opposition
groups make the decision? if they do not want to take american assistance, so be it. but if they do, i think you have to judge that they figure that they're capable of handling the question of whether or not being involved with the united states makes it harder for them to carry out their work domestically in iran. but obviously, the real questions, the real threats that iran poses are international. two-fold, their long and now very nearly successful way to act -- quest to have a deliverable nuclear weapons capability. and second, the terrorist threat that they pose around the middle east and around the world. they are equal opportunity terrorist did you do not have to be a shia like hezbollah to get their support. hamas in the gaza strip it's their support. terraced of all kinds of strikes in iraq get their support.
and they even support their former sworn enemies, the taliban in afghanistan. so this is a thread that i think we have understated for the last two years, at our peril. as we have understated the threat of the iranian nuclear weapons program. recently, you can hear the administration saying that economic sanctions have slowed the iranian nuclear program down. i would have to say this is one of the most fans of all claims that i can remember in a long time. there's no evidence that that has happened. in fact, the administration itself has shifted the rationale for the shanksville -- for the sanctions policy over the two years, away from the idea that the sanctions would stop the nuclear weapons program, to the rationale that the sanctions will bring iran into the negotiating table. that is not a subtle shift. that is a pretty dramatic change and would you think the effect
of the sanctions would be. how has that shift played out in practice? well, we just saw this past weekend the perm five + germany's recent session with iran that turned into a gigantic thud. it the sanctions are not stopping the nuclear program as such and the effect of bringing iran back to the negotiating table is for the basically to dallas to take a hike, that real performance, not rhetoric, i think, tells you what the sanctions are accomplishing. which is precious little in favor the sanctions, because i think anything that puts pressure on the regime is a good thing. but i do not think we should have any illusions that they are going to have a real impact on the nuclear program itself. as for the fabled virus, i believe it did have some impact in slowing iran's program down, and i have a lot of respect for
the intelligence agency, since that is probably where it came from. i also think it is incredibly effective propaganda agency. if your opponents think you're 10 feet tall and you're telling the world, well, you know, you can only imagine what we really did, the midas will be 10 feet tall. this virus affected the uranium enrichment activities of the iranian program. i think they will now be much more defensive in how they take the enrichment program forward. but there's no claim that had any effect on any other aspect of iran's activities, the weatherization activities are the ballistic missile programs. which we now have been conducted now for almost 15 years in close connection with north korea. we know a lot less about the connection on the nuclear front, but we do know, courtesy of the israeli air force, the north korea was building a nuclear
reactor in exterior of -- in syria of until israel destroyed it in 2007. i do not think there were constructing that reactor, which was a clone of what they had at yeonpyeong, because of north korea's common border and long cultural ties with syria. nor was serious financing it. i think we will find out that ultimately it was a three-week joint venture paid for by the iranians. it leads to the question, if they were doing that in assyria, what are they doing -- what else are they doing in syria? but what are they doing in other countries where we're not looking, like burma? this iranian nuclear program is >>, so, this program remains a threat. the are an ins are much closer to a nuclear weapon than the more optimistic estimates. in any of them, that is not the only test.
part of the tests is the breath, scope and depth of the nuclear infrastructure, and that is proceeding along with the construction of the heavy water reactor in iraq. all of this is continuing while we are still waiting for negotiations to begin, let alone 60. i think iran's terrorist threat is now even more obvious as well. the press this week, of course, is filled with reports about the overthrow of the government in tunisia, the challenges of the government in egypt and yemen, but let us not forget that at the same time iran is doing its best, and i'm afraid with considerable success, to subvert pro-democracy progress in other countries. in iraq, i am very concerned
that is by the end of this year in fact american oaks forces are withdrawn, that we will see iranian influence growing, and the government or a successor will basically repress the opposition in iraq, and undo a lot of the good that has been done there. even more dramatically, right now, as we need, the hezbollah terrorist organization has succeeded in imposing a new government in lebanon, dependent on the has the law block in parliament, that i think very much puts at risk the progress of the cedar revolution in has -- in lebanon. has the law has three offices in london on in the hands of people essentially subservient to them, meaning subservient to
iran. the risk, even in some of the other countries, egypt and yemen and in particular, is that the extremists of a different stripe could take advantage of the instability in those countries to get rid of regimes that may not look like jeffersonian democracy is to us, but which in retrospect would look a lot better than the moslem brotherhood in control in egypt, or al qaeda in control in yemen. yet, while all of this is going on, it's still mystifies me that we have not been able to conduct a referendum in the western sahara after all of these years of efforts to allow in a true democratic fashion the real residents of the western sahara to express their views on what they want for the future of their country. it is a great strategy, and i hope not a lost opportunity in the region to show what
legitimate democratic institutions can do. as you can tell, i am wildly optimistic about the next two years. [laughter] >> i think it is an issue that deserves more attention in our national political debate. obviously, like everybody else, i understand in 2008 we had an economic crisis. the economy was in great peril, and americans understandably wary first and foremost about their own livelihoods and their families. all of the evidence we can see is not because of the administration's policies, but in some cases despite them, the strength of the american economy is about to reassert itself. i think we will see a real economic recovery this year and next. i am optimistic about that. in any event, as i said at the
outset, foreign adversaries are not waiting to see how that turns out. they are not really all that interested in whether we restructure our domestic health- care system or not, although i do like to say that both can daunt -- kim jong il and -- that kim jong il would undoubtedly prefer the public option. [laughter] >> this is something the president should be able to handle along with domestic affairs. i think all of us as citizens have an obligation as well to insist on it -- to say to our candidates and leaders that we want to know more on how you plan to address the challenges we are going to face in the rest of the world, because no matter how strong our economy is here, if we are not facing those challenges adequately, long-term
the future of the united states remains in jeopardy. if i do not think that has happened enough in the past two years. i think it is very important for congress and others to raise it on the list of priorities going forward, and i hope all of you here today will help out in that effort. thank you very much. [applause] >> and, as i said, i would be delighted to answer questions about what ever i have covered, where the huge arena of subjects i did not cover in the interest of time. i do not know if you have microphones. perhaps you do. perhaps you could identify yourself for the benefit of others in the room. yes, sir? c-span.org -- [unintelligible] >> what is your opinion of the way it administration has handled [unintelligible]
>> obviously, there is a lot we do not know about what is happening in egypt. i would have to say the regime is facing a real threat. i do not think this is up passing fancy. it might have began with social networks reporting the event, but obviously, there is deep- seated dissatisfaction with the regime. i think the risk is very, very grave. the baby gets thrown out with the bath water here. i think egypt is a different situation. this is not just about the leader or the leaders son. is about the military's government that is ruled egypt since king farouk was overthrown. i do not think it will go easily. i think there could be enormous turmoil on the streets, and real potential danger for stability in the country as a whole. that is why i think the
development today that the muslim brotherhood called its supporters out into the street really shows why this is a problem that may not have a very good solution. it is like everything else in politics. this is about choices. if the choice were between the current regime and a functioning civil society and the other, that would be one choice. that is not the choice that we have the the moment. the more likely choice, unfortunately, might be the regime against the moslem brotherhood, and the consequences of that would be extraordinarily dangerous for america, israel, and other friends and interests in their region as a whole. in terms of how the administration has handled it, i think the reaction has been confused, although in fairness, i would say nobody saw this coming, including some of the leaders of the opposition who were partying outside of egypt
when the demonstration began. so, i think it may not be entirely justifiable, but it is understandable that the initial reaction has been somewhat confused. my recommendation would be to have -- to stay pretty low key. there is too much we do not know. i would like to hear much more about what the ground truth is in egypt, but i think it would be a mistake to underestimate the seriousness of this threat and the risk to american interest of this not turning out in no way that leaves us with a stable, friendly government in egypt. that has to be the touchstone of our policy, to protect our interests and those of our friends and allies there. >> where you see the hugo chavez regime colin back --
going? >> i am very worried about it. i think that all of us for too long have treated him like a clown rather than a threat because he behaves like a clown, so it is entirely understandable. i once heard president bush called him castro without brains, which is a pretty good description. i do not think you should allow his behavior to diminish the threat that he poses. i think he poses no threat to fragile democratic societies in the western hemisphere. -- poses a threat to fragile democratic societies in the western hemisphere's. he has intervened in ecuador. he provides arms assistance to the guerrillas in colombia. his efforts to take on argentinian debt i think pose a problem to that country. i do not know to what extent he
is involved in the mexican drug cartels, but i would not be surprised if he is doing it just because more trouble for us. he is, in a very material sense, a different kind of threat than castro was, even during the height of the cold war because the soviet union always held castro on a pretty short list economically. he was able to do what they wanted him to do. given the price of oil where it is, hugo chavez does not have any extern all master, and he has income, unfortunately. if that is not bad enough, we can see that in the past several years he has reached out to comment in a shot and the iranians, contract to the -- of medina shot -- and the iranians, contract with the russians for nuclear reactors,
allowed iran to send the -- setup the largest embassy in the world, i believe, according to reports were there are working hard to circumvent sanctions that have been imposed on venezuela. if his people believe that then as williams uranium reserves are second only to canada in the world, cooperation between venezuela, russia, and iran could be very troubling in terms of nuclear issues in this hemisphere. the regime is a real threat. it appears to be entrenching itself inside of venezuela. i am afraid that our reaction, at least as demonstrated by dealing with what happened in honduras, is to try to appease him, in hopes that he would tone down his policy. there is no evidence that that happened. i think the democratic regimes in latin america would prefer a little more american leadership
on the question, although i do not think they will put it in those terms. i do not think they will get it. i think we have another administration in a long series that says we will come into office pay more attention to the western hemisphere, and then does not do it. >> a m from radio free asia. -- i am from radio free asia. [unintelligible] what you think is the best way to handle north korea, and what do we need or what do we have to do? >> let me point out that it was chris hill who said that. i have been saying that for eight years. i believe in the power of redemption. i believe -- chris can apologize to me and everyone else that he
ignored. welcome to the right side of the bait, finally. the north koreans will not be talked out of their nuclear weapons program. that is as clear as it could be. i think the united states has to focus on the only ultimate solution to the north korean nuclear weapons problem, and that is the peaceful reunification of the peninsula. as long as the regime exists, the nuclear weapons threat will remain, and no one should have any illusions that we can appeal to the north koreans somehow to loosen up their policy for the good of their people. the north korean population now is on an individual basis for -- four to 6 inches shorter than the population of south korea. that is what the policy of the north korean regime has done by
creating a prison camp that is now inhabited by 23 million people. any regime capable of doing that to its own citizens is not going to be persuaded by the idea of improving the life of its citizens. so, the question obviously is how do you accomplish reunification? i think the answer is that it has to be focused and consistent pressure on china, to persuade china that its current policy needs to be north korea is schizophrenic. china says we do not want to have north korea with nuclear weapons because we do not want to destabilize northeast asia. it will effect our economic growth. i take them at their word. i think that analysis is entirely correct. the chinese are not willing to do anything that might risk destabilizing the region, which they properly worry could be collapsed very easily, because they do not want reunification.
they fear a reunified korea would bring american troops to the river on the border with china. they did not like that movie in 1950, and they do not like it any better today. i think they have to be persuaded that they should get on the right side of history. the two koreas will be reunited. china would be a lot better off from its own perspective to support reunification, and the expanded trade relations it will inevitably enjoy with a reunited korea. i think the chinese leadership is divided. i think the older generation still remembers those glorious days when the communist parties of china and north korea were as close as lips and teeth, as they used to say. good luck with that. i think the younger generation of chinese leaders, and by that i mean people in their 60's,
take a different view of north korea. they see it as the baggage said it is. they see the-effected is having on stability in northeast asia -- the negative effect it is having on stability in northeast asia and china themselves. you do not move china on this issue easily or quickly. it takes, i think, extended dialogue and pressure, and we're not doing that. that is the direction i would move in. >> i hope to see ronyon 2012. having said that, i want to get your thoughts on turkey. also, get your thoughts on the unrest currently going on in terms of coastal and albania. -- kosovo and albania. >> i think turkey is moving away from the west.
i think that is a great tragedy. i think we have seen this movement for some years. our inability to win turkish approval to bring in an infantry division across turkey, our nato ally, to deal with saddam hussein in 2003, was an early warning of that. if i do not think it is irreversible. i think turkish democracy remains strong. i think it can be changed. the signs are certainly very worried at this point. i am worried about kohl so low and what it might mean -- coast of low and what it might mean. i think that the breakup of yugoslavia is still not finished evolving, and the prospects for real turmoil there remains. again, it is just one of those foreign policy issues that it is far -- hard to find out who in the administration is focused on that. like so many other issues, it seems to get lost in the
shuffle. i think that is unfortunate, and potentially dangerous in southeast asia, as would be a turkey that went over the edge into a harshly, up politicized- muslim kind of authoritarian government. i think that would have major impact on europe and the united states as well. maybe we will do one or two more questions. >> with the increase in the chinese defense expenditures doubling over the last year, granted much less than what we have in our own budget, it will probably continue to increase. do you see in the future, the chinese military looking to maintain a defensive posture, or will they start looking at transoceanic navy's next to follow along with that, with your comments -- navy's?
to follow along with that, transgressions by north korea will be met with air strikes. how'd you see china jumping in on that? >> let me try to take on first the general question about the chinese military expenditure levels, and military expenditure levels around the world. secretary gates is fond of saying that the u.s. defense budget is larger than the next 13 or 22. the point is we have a big budget. that is right. we face a lot of threats. we are the only worldwide super- power. we have a lot of obligations other countries do not have. i do not think we really know what china's defense budget is. they publish a figure that might or might not be related to what the actual budget is. no. 3, this is not a question in
many cases of what the outcome of military hostilities between the united states and china would be. nobody is asking for that. nobody should want that. we should be trying to prevent that, but as the chinese capabilities built up, they are at an absolute minimum dramatically increasing the risks and costs to the united states of behavior for our es. i am not entirely sure we understand what the full development of chinese capabilities is. secretary gates said when he was there that that was really surprising, said the ex intelligence official. and the same official that canceled the f-22 stealth
fighter on the ground that we did not have to worry about competitive stealth technology at that level. wrong again. let me be clear. i understand we are in a period of great budgetary constraints, but i also understand we face threats and uncertainty about the direction those threats will take. that means the perfect -- the pressure on our defense expenditures is going to have to remain. my final point is that it is not a measure for the united states that we are ahead of other countries if it came to hostilities, which we do not want. i do not want the united states to be in a fair fight. i do not believe in fair fights. i want to win overwhelmingly, because that reduces the cost in american lives and risks to our interest. the more overwhelming our
capability is, the less likely you get into hostilities to begin with, because not only do you have an extraordinary deterrent effect, you have a dissuasive effect on countries who say we are not even going to go there. it is not worth the expenditure to challenge the united states. china is obviously well past that point. how would this play out? how would these additional air and naval capabilities work? not in direct conflict with the united states, at least not for the foreseeable future. that is not what we are talking about. what we are talking about, i think, in the short term is taiwan. taiwan does -- china does not want to have our war over taiwan. if they want it to fall into its lap and they will do that by threatening hostilities and
seeing how the united states react. when they worked up the pressure on taiwan in the clinton administration, president clinton sent two carrier battle groups and i was the end of the problem. how many in this room think barack obama would send two carrier battle groups to the taiwan strait if taiwan were threatened? exactly what i thought. i have posed that question to a wide variety of audiences. if i were living in taiwan, i would be nervous. what china was to be able to do is to be able to project power out p.m. the famous first island chain, and make it very hard for the united states to come to the defense of taiwan's -- defense of taiwan. to the point, president obama would say i would rather worry about health care than to what -- taiwan.
then, the chinese would achieve their objective of getting taiwan back. that is the scenario they would like to see played out. one has to say that the risk and the cost of potentially protecting taiwan's, you could see in congress, at least i would worry you could see an increasing lobbying of people who would say "let it go." when that attitude spreads, it does not stop that taiwan. in terms of north korea, the government of south korea now takes, i think, a more realistic view than its two predecessors did. i think they understand better than we do that the real issue here in the short term is the regime transition in north korea. it is by no means -- this is not like england where the eldest
son -- when prince charles, when queen elisabeth, finally goes to her reward, there is no doubt prince charles will finally get to be tamed. since he was born eight days before i was, i know how old he is, and how long he has been waiting to be king. he will be and no one will overthrow him. if that is not true -- that is not true in south korea. while there is a risk, there is also a tremendous opportunity. the regime in north korea is very fragile. it could come out easily. we should talk to china to avoid problems if that were to happen. there were real instability, we would go in to try to secure nuclear weapons, prevent massive
refugee flows, and we do not want to stumble into something as a result of not having communicated. i do not think there is much evidence at all that we are in serious discussion with the chinese on that point. i think this is further evidence of just a lack of attention to some of the issues and challenges that we face. >> a quick question on the program for broadcasting in to north korea, to try to get information passed the government to the people. do you think that has had any effect? >> i think it is very important to do that. i think what we learn from defectors in north korea is that information that comes out -- comes in from the outside is actually disseminated among the people very widely and very quickly. i do not want to paint an
optimistic picture, but i am just saying the population is hungry for information had and would welcome the opportunity is it a rose to see this regime history. just keeping them informed, letting them know the rest of the world has not forgotten about them, and that we are serious about trying to do something about this regime is very worthwhile. i think it is an idea that has widespread support. south korea, finally -- i was always amazed in many visits to south korea to see how indifferent students and professors were to these grotesque human rights violations taking place in the north. i think that is changing now. i think people have seen, because of the shelling of yeonpyeong island, which is sad that it takes that to happen,
but i think it is a change in the understanding of the threat posed by north korea, and i think we should all try to take advantage of that. ok. thank you again very much for coming. [applause] >> thank you for joining us. we do have dr. ferris to talk about the war on islam of fascism. be sure you are on our e-mail list. you will automatically get notification of the next forum. be sure you are on it. thank you again for being here. [applause] national captioning institute] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]
>> last night's statement from egyptian president mubarak, he made his first television appearance since the protests began. he said he has as his cabinet to resign. this is about 10 minutes. >> i have been closely monitoring the demonstrations and the demands voiced by the people. my instructions to the government stress that to provide an opportunity to the masses not to suppress their views and demands. i then followed it the attempts by some to jump on the wagon and
monger slogans and i regret the innocent casualties and victims on both the side of citizens and police personnel. the government committed to my instructions and this was clear in the way the police handle the demonstrations. they took the initiative to defend them at the beginning of the administration, respecting their right of peaceful demonstration so long as it is within the parameters of bailout law -- parameters of a whole lot. the law. these demonstrations and what we
witnessed earlier in the rallies staged over the past few years wouldn't have taken place without the huge space of a freedom of the press and many other forms of of freedom that was granted to the egyptian people by the reforms egypt is embracing and the unparalleled joining of the forces of society. in my capacity as president of the republic and by a virtual all the powers conferred to me by the constitution as a judge in arbitrator, i always stress and will continue to reiterate that sovereignty will be to the people and i will always defending the right of
freedom so long as it is within the parameters of law and the constitution. there is a fine line separating freedom from chaos. while i take the side of citizens freedom to express their views, but also similarly adhere to defending egyptian stability and security. into't want to steer it any threats that may jeopardize public safety, public order whose repercussions on the current and future of egypt is unpredictable. egypt is the biggest country in the region in terms of the population, geographical location. covered by the constitution and
the rule of law. we should be cautious and aware of the many examples around us which drove people to chaos and mayhem. they gained no democracy or stability. my fellow citizens, these demonstrations came to suppress the aspirations for more democracies and speed actions to combat unemployment, raising the standard of living and fighting poverty and addressing corruption. i am fully aware of these local aspirations of the egyptian people and i am also aware of the degree of their suffering to which i am always attached and working day after day.
however, the problems facing us and the goals sought by s cannot be achieved by violence. they can only be achieved by a national dialogue and conscious concerted genuine efforts. egypt looks to them to live up to steer away from those who in tice chaos and looting public and public-private -- public and private property. i have a firm belief and conviction that we will continue our political, economic, and social reforms for a free and democratic egyptian
society, embracing the modern principles and opening to the world. i have taken the side, and we will always take the side, of the poor people of egypt convinced that the economy is too dangerous to left -- to be left to economists on a loan. i've always been keen on directing the government policies towards economic reforms to be expedited and speeded up to lift the suffering of the people. our plans to combat unemployment and provide more educational services, health care, housing, and many other services to the citizens will remain conditional on our efforts to maintain egypt as secure and stable, a home to
a civilized people that cannot jeopardize its aspiration to the future or leave it to go down the drain. we will go about the actions of looting which may indicate further plots to shake the foundation and civility of egypt. i call and our youth and call on each and every egyptian citizen, man and woman, to work for the public interest of the people and to stand up for their country, not by sitting or assaulting public property, not by this can we achieve the aspirations of egypt and its people. these aspirations can be achieved for a better future by way of awareness, dialogue, and genuine efforts for the public
good. my fellow citizens, i address you today not only as the president of the republic but also as an egyptian citizen which my faith put me under the responsibility of this country, and exhausted my life for the country in times of war and peace. we have weathered hard times and surmounted these obstacles when we stood up for them, one people, one nation, and when we were aware of our direction and our cause and set our goals right. the goals to reform which we have embraced which has no point of return, we will continue steadily by new steps emphasizing our respect to the
rule of law, new steps towards a more democracy, more freedoms to citizens. new steps to reduce unemployment, raise the standard of living, develop services, new steps to stand by the side of the poor and people of low income. our options and our goals will define the shape of our future and we have no other alternative to achieve them but to embrace genuine work and struggle. we will continue to maintain what we have earned and embarked on this, cautious of the future of the nation, that incidents that took place today and the past few days, have left the
majority of the egyptian people ffearing for egypt and its future. we will be cautious of further mesdames, chaos, and the destruction. i am shouldering my first responsibility to maintain the homeland security and the citizens' safety, cannot tolerate or allow this fear to grip our people and therefore, i would not allow this to haunt our future and our faith. i have requested the government to step down today and i will designate a new government as of tomorrow to shoulder new duties
and to account for the priorities of the upcoming era. i state once again that i will not be lax or tolerant. i will take all the steps to maintain the safety and security of all ages. i will safeguard the safety of egypt and the aspirations of our people. it is the duty and responsibility for which i have taken the oath to safeguard and maintain. may god save egypt, its people, and made it can guide us, and may peace be upon you all. >> following the speech, president obama also spoke, saying that president mubarak needs to follow through on promises of reform. their remarks are about five minutes. -- the remarks are about five minutes.
>> good evening, everybody. my administration has been closely monitoring the situation in egypt. i know that we will be learning more tomorrow when daybreaks. as the situation continues to unfold, our first concern is preventing injury and loss of life. i want to be very clear in calling upon the egyptian authorities to refrain from any violence against peaceful protesters. the people of egypt have rights that are universal, that includes the right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to free speech, and the ability to determine their own destiny. these are human rights and the united states will stand up for them everywhere. i also call upon the egyptian government to reverse the actions they have taken to interfere with access to the
internet, the cell phone service and social networks that do so much to connect people in the 21st century. at the same time, those protesting in the streets have a responsibility to express themselves peacefully. violence and destruction will not lead to the reforms they seek. i am going forward at this moment of volatility, this has to be turned into a moment of promise. the united states has a close partnership with egypt and we have cooperated on many issues including working together to advance in more peaceful region. we have also been clear that there must be reformed. social andl economical that meet the aspirations of the egyptian people. in the absence of these reforms, grievances have built up over time. when president mubarak addressed to the egyptian people tonight, he pledged it a better democracy
and greater opportunity. i just spoke to him after his speech and i told him that he has a responsibility to give meaning to those words, to take concrete steps and actions that deliver on that promise. violence will not address the grievances of the egyptian people. suppressing ideas never succeed in making them go away. what is needed right now are concrete steps that advance the rights of the egyptian people, a meaningful dialogue between the government and its citizens and a path of political change that leads to a future of greater freedom and greater opportunity and justice for the egyptian people. ultimately, the future of egypt will be determined by the egyptian people. i believe the egyptian people want the same things that we all want, a better life for ourselves and our children, and a government that is fair and
just and responsive. put simply, the egyptian people want a future that the fits the heirs to a great and asian civilization. the united states always will be a partner in pursuit of that future and we are committed to working with the egyptian government and the egyptian people, all quarters, to achieve it. around the world, governments have an obligation to respond to their citizens. that is true here in the united states. that is true in asia. that is true in europe. that is true in africa and it is certainly true in the arab world. where a new generation of citizens has the right to be heard. when i was in cairo shortly after i was elected president, i said that all governments must maintain power through consent, not coercion. that is the single standard by which the people of egypt will achieve the future they deserve.
surely, there will be difficult days to come but the united states will continue to stand up for the rights of the egyptian people and work with their government in pursuit of a future that is more just, more free, and more hopeful. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> next, live, your calls and comments on "washington journal ." health and human services secretary kathleen sibelius' fall by the economic impact of health-care law. >> sunday, former minnesota governor tim pawlenty -- the likely 2012 presidential candidate spoke at an event in new hampshire, part of a two-day visit to the state. new hampshire will host the first of the nation's primaries. first of the nation's primaries.